LEGEND:

Black- My answers
Red- Suggested Answers
1990 Bar Exam
(a)

Yes, the law followed the requirements of a valid publication.

Under the Civil Code, before the law is considered effective it must be
published first in the newspaper of general circulation and in official
gazette.

Here, it was shown that the law was published in official gazette on
July 10 and in a newspaper of general circulation on July 7.

Hence, the law followed the requirements of valid publication.

Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself prescribed the
requisites of publication for its effectivity, and all requisites has been
complied with.

(b)

The law took effect on July 10 since it was the date that it was
published on a newspaper of general circulation.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the law will
take effect if it is published in a newspaper of general circulation, the
publication in said newspapers is treated as the same as official gazette
since most of the people has no capacity to subscribe in an official gazette.
The law took effect upon compliance with the all conditions for
effectivity, and the last condition was complied on July 10. Hence, the law
become effective on that date.

(c)
Yes, the Executive Branch can start the releasing funds after its
approval.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the funds appropriated in

the proposed law may be released after it is signed by the President. The
publication is made only for the people to be informed.

No. It was not yet effective when it was approved by the Congress
and the President. The other requisites for its effectivity were not yet
complete at the time.

1996 Bar Exam

In ignorance of the law, it does not excuse the person from liability, as
explicitly stated in the Civil Code. The reason why it is not excused is due
to the fact that before the law becomes effective it will be published first in
the official gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation to inform the
people with regards to the existence of said law.
On the other hand, mistake of fact, the person is wholly excuse from
liability, but it must be proven first that the person is exercising due
diligence in the performance of the act in order to be excused based on the
ground of mistake of fact.
 Yes, there is a difference.

While ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not complying with it,
ignorance of fact eliminates criminal intent as long as there is no
negligence. In addition, mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law
may be the basis of good faith. Mistake of fact may, furthermore, vitiate
consent in a contract and make it voidable.
The former does not excuse a party from the legal consequences of
his conduct while the latter does constitute an excuse and is a legal
defense.

1994 Bar Exam

No, the decisions of the Court of Appeals are not considered laws.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it is only the decision of the

Supreme Court which can be considered as laws, not the decision of the
lower courts more specifically the Court of Appeals. Being the court of last
resort, their decision will be considered as interpretation of the laws and
hence will form part our legal system.

No, but decisions of the Court of Appeals may serve as precedents

for inferior courts on points of law not covered by any Supreme Court
decision, and a ruling of the Court of Appeals may become a doctrine.

No. Decisions of the Court of Appeals merely have persuasive, and

therefore no mandatory effect. However, a conclusion or pronouncement
which covers a point of law still undecided may still serve as judicial guide
and it is possible that the same maybe raised to the status of doctrine. If
after it has been subjected to test in the crucible of analysis, the Supreme
Court should find that it has merits and qualities sufficient for its
consideration as a rule of jurisprudence